International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2012)

Seismic Behaviour of Buildings Having Flat Slabs with

Drops
Dr. Uttamasha Gupta1, Shruti Ratnaparkhe2, Padma Gome3
1
Professor, SGSITS, Indore
2
Assistant Prof. IES IPSA, Indore
3
Assistant Prof. Patel Group of Institutions, Indore

Abstract—As flat slab building structures are significantly In general normal frame construction utilizes columns,
more flexible than traditional concrete frame/wall or frame slabs and Beams. However it may be possible to undertake
structures, thus becoming more vulnerable to seismic loading. construction without providing beams, in such a case the
Therefore, the characteristics of the seismic behavior of flat frame system would consist of slab and column without
slab buildings suggest that additional measures for guiding beams. These types of slabs are called flat slabs. The slab
the conception and design of these structures in seismic directly rests on the column and load from the slab is
regions are needed. To improve the performance of building directly transferred to the columns and then to the
having flat slabs under seismic loading, provision of part foundation.
shear walls is proposed in the present work. The construction of reinforced concrete buildings with
flat slab systems has become widely used in some high
The object of the present work is to compare the behaviour
of multi-storey buildings having flat slabs with drops with that
seismicity European countries. This type of structures is
of having two way slabs with beams and to study the effect of particularly common in South European countries, such as
part shear walls on the performance of these two types of Italy, Spain and Portugal, both for office and residential
buildings under seismic forces. Present work provides a good buildings. Even though national codes may include rules
source of information on the parameters lateral displacement for the design of these structures, this matter is not covered
and storey drift. by the latest draft of Euro code 8. [2] The behavior of this
type of structural systems with flat slab frames used as
seismic resistant elements show important drawbacks, such
Keywords— Flat slab, part shearwalls, flexibility, lateral
as the essentially non-dissipative features of their seismic
displacement, storey drift.
response. Furthermore, flat slab building structures are
significantly more flexible than traditional concrete
I. INTRODUCTION
frame/wall or frame structures, thus becoming more
Earthquake resistant design of RC buildings is a vulnerable to second order P-Δ effects under seismic
continuing area of research since the earthquake excitations. Therefore, the characteristics of the seismic
engineering has started not only in India but in other behavior of flat slab buildings suggest that additional
developed countries also. The buildings still damage due to measures for guiding the conception and design of these
some one or the other reason during earthquakes. In spite of structures in seismic regions are needed.
all the weaknesses in the structure, either code
imperfections or error in analysis and design, the structural II. PROBLEM FORMULATION & ANALYSIS
configuration system has played a vital role in
catastrophe.[2] In general normal frame construction utilizes columns,
Reinforced concrete flat slabs are one of the most slabs and Beams. However it may be possible to undertake
popular floor systems used in residential buildings, car construction without providing beams, in such a case the
parks and many other structures. They represent elegant frame system would consist of slab and column without
and easy-to-construct floor systems. Flat slabs are favoured beams. These types of slabs are called flat slabs. The
by both architects and clients because of their aesthetic review of literature reveals that much work has been done
appeal and economic advantage. A flat slab floor system is
for the analysis and design of multistorey buildings having
often the choice when it comes to heavier loads such as
multi-storey car parking, libraries and multi-storey flat slabs under seismic loading, but the work to improve
buildings where larger spans are also required. the performance of the behavior of flat slab is yet to be

416
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2012)
implemented. For this purpose six cases of multi-storey 30m/27m/9,
buildings are considered. 20m x 30m/33m/11 and 20m x
Case-I: Building area 16 m x 24 m with 7 storeys. Part 30m/39m/13
shear walls at ground floor only.
Case-II: Building area 16 m x 24 m with 9 storeys. Part
shear walls at ground floor only.
Case-III: Building area 20 m x 30 m with 7 storeys. Part
shear walls at ground floor only.
Case-IV: Building area 20 m x 30 m with 9 storeys. Part
shear walls at ground floor only.
Case-V: Building area 20 m x 30 m with 11 storeys. Part
shear walls at ground floor and first floor only.
Case-VI: Building area 20 m x 30 m with 13 storeys. Part
shear walls at ground floor only.
For all the six cases 3 models are to be compared :
1. Beam column frame with master slave command-
(F+MS)
2. Beam column frame with two way slab- (F+S)
3. Column frame with flat slab with drops- (C+FS+D)
These 3 models are analysed with part shear walls and
without shear walls. To study the behaviour the response
parameters selected are lateral displacement and storey
drift. All the cases are assumed to be located in zone III,
zone IV and zone V. To reduce lateral displacement and Figure 1
storey drift shear walls have been provided at corners Shorter plan without shear walls
without affecting the parking in ground floors. Further, in
practice multi-storey buildings are analysed by providing
rigidity at various floors using master slave command in
STAAD.Pro software. In reality slabs exist at various floor
levels which provide additional rigidity to floors.
Therefore, in present work a comparative study of above
mentioned practice and reality is also made. Observations
show that lateral displacement and storey drift are
significantly reduced by providing part shear walls.
TABLE 1
Summary of the variables
Parameters Variables
- Zones III, IV and V
- Position of Shear Walls No Shear Walls, SWC(SW at
corners)
- Plot size/Building Height/No. of 16m x 24m/21m/7, 16m x
Storeys 24m/27m/9,
20m x 30m/21m/7, 20m x Figure 2
Shorter plan with part shear walls
417
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2012)

Details of all the cases:

1. Storey height provided in all the cases is 3m.
2. Size of beams are taken as 200mm x 400mm in all the
cases.
3. Thickness of slab is 120mm.
4. Thickness of part shear wall is 150mm.
5. Thickness of flat slab in case I & II is 170mm through
out and 230mm at drops.
6. Thickness of flat slab in case III, IV & V is 200mm
through out and 280mm at drops.
7. Sizes of column varies from 300mm to 600mm.
8. Loadings considered are:
a). Dead Load- It is taken by software itself.
b). Live Load- 4 KN/m2 on all the floors.
c). Earthquake Load- As per IS 1893 (part-I):2002.
9. Load combinations considered are:
a). 1.5(DL + LL)
b). 1.5(DL + EQL)
Figure 3
Larger plan without shear walls
c). 1.2(DL + LL + EQL)

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The study examines the performance of multi-storey
buildings having different types of slabs with part shear
walls and without part shear walls. As it is discussed earlier
that use of flat slabs makes the structure flexible under
seismic loading, therefore, in present work beam slab
arrangement is replaced by flat slabs and behaviour of
buildings is studied with and without part shear walls.
To study the effectiveness of all these models, the storey
drift, lateral displacement and column design are worked
out and are presented in following tables.
Effect of parameters studied on storey drift:
According to IS:1893:2002 (part I), maximum limit for
storey drift with partial load factor 1.0 is 0.004 times of
storey height. Here, for 3m height and load factor of 1.5,
maximum drift will be 18mm. It is observed from the
analysis that for all the cases considered drift values follow
a parabolic path along storey height with maximum value
Figure 4 lying somewhere near the middle storey.
Larger plan with part shear walls

418
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2012)
From the results increase or decrease in drift values is
calculated and tabulated below: TABLE 3
TABLE 2 Increase or Decrease in Maximum Lateral Displacement
Increase or Decrease in Storey Drift Zone Shorter Plan Larger Plan

Without With SW Without With SW

Zone III Zone IV Zone V
SW SW
Witho Witho Witho
Cas With With With
ut ut ut III (-)7mm- (-)6mm- (+)1mm- (+)1mm-
es Shear Shear Shear
Shear Shear Shear 10mm 9mm 10mm 8mm
wall wall wall
wall wall wall IV (-)10mm- (-)9mm- (+)2mm- (+)2mm-
14mm 13mm 14mm 12mm
I +3 +3 +1 +1.5 +2 +2
V (-)16mm- (-)13mm- (+)4mm- (+)3mm-
II +3 +3 +1 +1.5 +2 +2
21mm 19mm 21mm 18mm
III -1 -1 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -1
IV -1 -1 -1.5 -0.5 -1 -1
(+) indicates increase
V -1 -2 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -1
(-) indicates decrease
VI -2 -2 -1 -1 -1.5 -1.5

It is evident from above values that provision of flat

+ indicates increase in values
slabs with drop results in increase in lateral displacement
-indicates decrease in values
values from 1mm to 18mm in case of larger plans and
decrease from 6mm to 20mm in case of shorter plans.
It is observed here that in shorter plans use of flat slabs
In case of zone III and IV maximum lateral displacement
with drops results in increase in drift values, though, very
values in all the cases that is both types of plans, with and
little. It is 1mm, 2mm and 3mm in zones III, IV and V
without shear walls and with beam slabs and flat slabs with
respectively, with and without shear walls both.
drops, are within permissible limits.
In larger plans because of presence of flat slabs with drops
In zone V the only case in which part shear walls keep the
drift gets reduced, though, with a very little margin that is,
lateral displacement within permissible limits is larger plan
0.5mm to 2mm in all the zones.
with 13 storeys having flat slabs with drop. In remaining all
Though, use of flat slabs alters the drift values marginally,
cases lateral displacements are beyond the permissible
however, these are well within permissible limits for all the
limits. Hence provision of part shear walls is not enough to
cases. Hence, it may be said that from drift view point
keep the lateral displacement within permissible limits,
shear walls are not required for frames having flat slabs
whether it is a beam slab framed structure or framed
with drops.
structure with flat slabs with drops.
Effect of parameters studied on column design:
Effect of parameters studied on lateral displacement:
It is observed from the analysis that use of flat slabs
According to IS:456:2000, maximum limit for lateral
with drops in place of beam slabs causes increase in
displacement is H/500, where H is building height. Results
percentage reinforcement in columns.
for lateral displacement are discussed below.
The increase in column percentage is in a range of 0.4 to
As compared to frames with beams and slab, the provision
0.9 %, 0.4 to 0.8 % and 0.4 to 1 % in case of zones III, IV
of flat slab with drop results in increase/decrease in
and V respectively, without shear walls. Along with shear
maximum lateral displacement at top. Such
walls it is in a range of 0 to 0.4 %, 0 to 0.9 % and 0.2 to 0.8
increase/decrease calculated from results is presented
% with zones III, IV and V respectively.
below.
It is also observed that, in shorter plans increment
observed is not significantly affected by presence of shear
walls. Shear walls have reduced the increment by 0.2%
419
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2012)
only in all the zones. In larger plans contribution of shear IV. CONCLUSIONS
walls is more significant. It causes reduction in increment Within the scope of present work following conclusions
in a range of 0.6 to 0.8, 0 to 0.4 and 0.2 to 0.4 in zones III, are drawn:
IV and V respectively. 1. For all the cases considered drift values follow a
Comments on master slave approach: parabolic path along storey height with maximum
In practice, rigidity at various floors in horizontal value lying somewhere near the middle storey.
direction is taken into account considering master slave 2. Use of flat slabs with drop results in increase in drift
command at various floor levels in STAAD.Pro software. values in shorter plans and decrease in larger plans,
However, this rigidity will depend on the thickness of slab marginally in a range of 0.5mm to 3mm. Still all drift
provided. A comparison of master slave approach and values are within permissible limits even without
realistic case that is consideration of slabs along with shear walls.
frames is given below. 3. In zone III and IV use of flat slabs with drop in place
Analysis result reveals that the master slave approach over of beam slab arrangements, though, alters the
estimates the maximum displacement at top. Increase in maximum lateral displacement values, however, these
displacement values as compared to consideration of slabs all are well within permissible limits, even without
along with frames is as follows: shear walls.
TABLE 4 4. Provision of part shear walls in zone V is not enough
Zone Shorter Plan Larger Plan to keep maximum lateral displacements within
Without With Without With SW permissible limits, whether it is a beam slab framed
SW SW SW structure or framed structure with flat slabs with drop.
5. Replacement of beam slab arrangement by flat slabs
III 5mm-7mm 4mm- 8mm- 7mm- with drop results in increase in column reinforcement,
6mm 20mm 16mm however, presence of shear walls compensates the
IV 7mm- 6mm- 12mm- 10mm- increment resulted, but in larger plans only in all the
11mm 9mm 30mm 24mm
zones. In case of larger plans increase in column
V 11mm- 9mm- 19mm- 16mm-
16mm 14mm 45mm 36mm
reinforcement is 0.6 to 1 % without shear walls and
0.2 to 0.6 % with shear walls, hence presence of shear
walls has significant contribution to column
Above mentioned values reveal that in shorter plans
reinforcement in case of larger plans. In shorter plans
increase is in a range of 5mm to 16mm and in larger plans,
such increment is 0.4 to 0.7 % without shear walls
8mm to 45mm. Hence, in larger plans due consideration
and 0.3 to 0.7 % with shear walls, hence presence of
should be given to realistic approach.
shear walls has no significant contribution in shorter
Results reveals that in case of column design
plans.
reinforcement percentage is more with master slave
6. From lateral displacement view point, in shorter plans
approach as compared to realistic case that is consideration
master slave approach may be adopted but in larger
of slabs along with frames.
plans realistic analysis considering slabs at various
This increase is 0.2 to 0.3 % in zone III, 0.2 to 0.4 % in
floor levels should be carried out. Though time
zone IV and 0.1 to 0.5 % in zone V, without consideration
elapsed in analysis increases, however, it is of the
of shear walls. Along with shear walls percentage increase
tune of 5-10 minutes only.
reduces. It is in a range of 0.1 to 0.2 % in all the zones.
7. From column design view point, with shear walls
Hence, without shear walls realistic approach should be
master slave approach may be used, however, without
adopted, however, with shear walls master slave approach
shear walls realistic approach should be adopted.
may be used.

420
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2012)
REFERENCES

[1] H.-S. Kim, D.-G. Lee. 2004. Efficient analysis of flat slab
structures subjected to lateral loads.
[2] Ema Coelho, Paulo Candeias, Giorgios Anamateros, Raul
Zaharia, Fabio Taucer, Artur V. PINTO. 2004. Assessment of
the seismic behaviour of RC flat slab building structures.
[3] Vancouver, B.C., Canada. 2004. Efficient Seismic Analysis of
Flat Plate System Structures.
[4] R. P. Apostolska, G. S. Necevska-Cvetanovska, J. P.
Cvetanovska and N. Mircic. 2008. Seismic performance of flat-
slab building structural systems.
[5] Sang-Whan Han, Ph.D., P.E.; Young-Mi Park; and Seong-
Hoon Kee. Stiffness Reduction Factor for Flat Slab Structures
under Lateral Loads.
[6] Youngmi Park, Jaok Jo, Seungyong Oh, Sangwhan Han. A
modified equivalent frame method under lateral loads.
[7] George Lin. Stability of Column Supporting Flat Slab Without
Beam Grid.

421